BRITCON FEEDBACK - RULE SUGGESTIONS

[marshalney2000]

I must admit that i was originally concerned about the effect of shooting but having played more games I am pretty happy with the status quo. If you keep a fairly solid line, support your troops and use your generals then you can minimise the impact and even drop affected troops back to rally them.
My Portuguese did not have many missile troops and generally faced more than I had but I kept things tight and generally chased the missile troops away - in many cases of the rear of the table.
Having said this I had a good success with Classical indian last night against Republican Roman. I kept the Roman good stuff away from the bows and drew them onto the elephants and chariots. I then used my bows to mop up the Roman supporting troops and cavalry.
John

[lawrenceg]

Isn't the down to FRG is a pretty minor effect in practice as you will surely just charge them to make them rout instead.



Si

LF can't charge to administer the coup de grace to non-skirmishers.

If you charge there is a risk of losing or of pursuing into a vulnerable position.

If you don't want to take the risk of charging, you can always shoot them until they autobreak, but they might recover from FRAG first and start advancing again.

[madaxeman]

Clearly this can happen on occasion. Could you give me a few examples of these isolated shooting examples. What state the target BG? Was it isolated? Where were the generals? etc.

Thanks

Si

There are examples in 2 of the three games I have posted so far.

First game (vs John) was a Bg of 4 Hvy Armoured knights vs 8 LH - the knights were unable to contact the LH, and eventually fell down the ladder to broken

Third game (vs Pete) saw 2 of my units go this way - a unit of Turcopoles who arent really shown other than at th ebeginning, but they came up against 8 Lh and were broken whilst again being unable to catch the LH. The second unit to go in this game was a unit of 6 Armoured Def Sp who were shot down by 8 LF bowmen in 3 rounds of shooting I suspect, despite the presence of a general trying to intervene.


The other lateral aspect to the "mounted shooting" debate I realised when writing my reports is that a cavalry BG that breaks will a/ quickly be far enough away from enemy to be able to rallied and b/ moves fast enough to come back and rejoin the battle. I struggle to have an opportunity to even rally foot, and when/if they did eventually rally, they were far too far away to do anything other than sit there and boost my break point back up.

Relating to this, it maybe interesting to know how many BGs or shooting dice worth of MF bow or crossbow there were at the weekend. I only remeber seeing Johns 3-4 blocks in the Portuguese.among my opponents - and I soon realised the only role for my Unprot MF was as a rear support factor for my spears in CT

[shall]

Thanks Tim
Exactly what we need to think things through.

There are examples in 2 of the three games I have posted so far.

First game (vs John) was a Bg of 4 Hvy Armoured knights vs 8 LH - the knights were unable to contact the LH, and eventually fell down the ladder to broken

Just to get the odds right.... need 2 hits on 5s to hit. Expect 1.33 hits a go. About 45% of the time you will get a test as its skewed. Assuming a general you need a natural 7 with a re-roll to pass as the small BG size means that you can't avoiod the -1 for 1HP2. 62% without a re-roll - about 80% chance of passing with it IIRC. Once DISR then the odds rise as you tilt the other way - 38% and about 50% IIRC wen DISR. My experience is that chasing LH with Knights alone is unilkely to succeed, but there is decnt odd you will survive it.

What happened to you here is rather like what happened in the real crusades - Knights try to chase LH and get worn down by skirmish and missile fire. Hattin 1187 is a good example we looked at. If isolated one would expect knightsto get beaten by LH in decent numbers. So plaing again would they be at risk if they didn't charge isolated to chse way the LH and instead worked more together with the rest of the army like Ricahrd 1 at Arsuf about 5 years later?

Third game (vs Pete) saw 2 of my units go this way - a unit of Turcopoles who arent really shown other than at th ebeginning, but they came up against 8 Lh and were broken whilst again being unable to catch the LH. The second unit to go in this game was a unit of 6 Armoured Def Sp who were shot down by 8 LF bowmen in 3 rounds of shooting I suspect, despite the presence of a general trying to intervene.

Again need to separate odds, army desing and tactics from the mechanisms. The Turcopoles with extra speed have more chance than the knights of catching LH but needing only 4s are much more vulnerable if isolated. So if anything a higher risk still version of the above. So again probably a tactical change to not try such an adventure and work more gradually with the armoured foot would be in order.

The second example, yup, a genuine rough luck one that can happen even if you do everything right with tactics thatsuit the rules. 5s to hit so not that easy to force a test but often you will get 2 hits from 3 dice. Counter to this is to be in a olid line to avoid the risk of ebign ganged up on and ideally in 8s rather than 6s and 3 wide. Drops your frotnage by 25% but makes your line very tough vs fire.
All the above said we are consdiering the drop only to FRG at the moment. Our worry is that it swings things the other way in games where people have more experience and have figured out the tactical plays that work in the rules. Our challenge throghout - and its not always easy - is to forecast ahead at how all you players will feel once you have got to that stage in 3-6 months time.

Two observations I would make from umpiring:
1) People on the lower tables often said the game felt unity. Peopl ont he higher tables didn't. Looking at the games the lower tables were often trying to use BGs as individual units and those who have palyed much more had them working more in battlelines and larger grouping supporting each other. Perhaps this is self-reinforcing...if you use the army as units it will feel unity...but if you aim to use it more as batlelines it won't. To be honest when I started DBM I got murdered because I did things that seemed logical under previous rulesets and they weren't so there is always a learning curve. Did OK in the end.
2) Tim you chose a difficult army to use. I think its a good one but not one for a newby as one needs to havea good sense of the likely outcomes of things such as the above to make it work. I think I will give the army a try sometime and see what I can manage with it and report back. I suspect that a) you would not pick this army for the next comp - I feel lithuanians coming! and b) you would go back and try it again after 10+ games as you will then find ways to play the odds with it rather differently.

Si

[pbrandon]

As an example, as requested, of an extreme result, I had a BG of 6 HF Protected Offensive Spear broken by 3 successive rounds of shooting by a BG of 6 Jav armed LH. The spear had a general with them and were supported. The spear charged at two points in an attempt to drive off the LH, the VMD in one case taking them forward of the rest of the BL. It happened right at the beginning of the game and they were recovered, but were effectively out of the game having been turned around and fled twice.

Paul

[rbodleyscott]

As an example, as requested, of an extreme result, I had a BG of 6 HF Protected Offensive Spear broken by 3 successive rounds of shooting by a BG of 6 Jav armed LH. The spear had a general with them and were supported. The spear charged at two points in an attempt to drive off the LH, the VMD in one case taking them forward of the rest of the BL. It happened right at the beginning of the game and they were recovered, but were effectively out of the game having been turned around and fled twice.

As you say, it is an extreme result - and you can reasonably expect 1 extreme result in each battle. Plans need to be made taking this into account.

I must comment on the "broken in 3 rounds of shooting" issue which gets raised repeatedly. Unless you are unlucky with bolstering rolls, pretty much the only time a BG is going to be routed by shooting is if it happens in 3 rounds of shooting. If it doesn't, the BG will get opportunities to be bolstered.

As javelins only have a range of 2 MUs, surely your battle group could have charged them if they were to your front, thus gaining a respite and a chance to be bolstered. (And if they were to your flank or rear, a more severe effect on your BG is historically reasonable). We are trying to discourage defensive positions, and giving incentives to troops to charge rather than stand there and "take it like men" is part of the design philosophy. [Don't advance into shooting range of javelins on your turn - by the time you get to your next turn you may be FRAGmented and unable to charge].

Also, as you say, the only effect on that BG ultimately was to delay it.

[shall]

As an example, as requested, of an extreme result, I had a BG of 6 HF Protected Offensive Spear broken by 3 successive rounds of shooting by a BG of 6 Jav armed LH. The spear had a general with them and were supported. The spear charged at two points in an attempt to drive off the LH, the VMD in one case taking them forward of the rest of the BL. It happened right at the beginning of the game and they were recovered, but were effectively out of the game having been turned around and fled twice.

Paul

Thanks Paul. I think I vaguely remember this one.

Did you not have other BGs that could adavnce past the DISR unit and shield them from fire whle they recovered? Charging while DISR is a real risk as if you roll up (1/3rd the chance) you get isolated and can take heavy fire. 1/3rd of the time you will face moderate fire. 1/3rdof the time you will be shielded well by others. It is deliberately set up that way - it is the risk of charging when DISRed. If you have other BGs nearby then advance those instead and draw fire from the vulnerable BG. Have read of my Dailami run throguh above and note how the DISRed troops didn't charge but other did or advanced to shield them temporarily.

Also note that even after it happened you did not in the end lose the BG it simply messed up your overall advance which is largely what we find and rather realistic in fact. Albeit by a dramatic path. Your issue is that the ski9rmishers interefered with your plans - but if they can't what use are skirmishers?

Clearly even 2 dice can break a 6 Base BG in 3 rounds if it gets lucky but even with average troops that means
2 hits each time = 1in 4 a go to force the tests = 1.6%
3 fails in a row needed natural 6s assuming no rear support but a general, = 25% x 38% x 62% = 12.7%

That gives about 2 in 1000 chance of it happening if 2 deep with no rear support. So as they say trouble happens. As I often relate I lost a DBM army from no casualties to gone in 3 consequetive 1s once. 1 in about 8500 I think when we worked the whole situation out as I neeeded a 1 for the ally and for it to faily to come back in 6 bounds too

Try it in 8s and 3 deep without rear support it 3 hits to force a test from 3 dice = 12.5% half the odds above and only needing 6s as never 1 per 2 = 25% x 38% x 62% = 12.7% for that = 0.01% odds. Then concenration of fire can move it up fo the target and donw for the rest.

It would help therefore if yould you mentally re-simulate that section of the game with

Prot SP in 8s deployed 3 deep but with no rear suppot
Not charging when DISR but instead advancing or charging other units to shield them (cjharge at an angle at times to clear troop away in front of other for example)

Si

[dvorkin]

Hi french point of view concerning shooting after Britcon
I don’t want to argue concerning shooting but i’m always surprised by remarks saying that shooting is to powerful.

The idea is to avoid to give opportunities to opponents to obtain a maximun of shooting and integrate this in your battle plan . History is full of example where army didn’t take in account capacity of shooting army and they loose.

Now come back to Britcon:

- Jerome was able with his medieval scots to defeat 4 shooting amies, but he was agressive his BG’s were of 8 or 10 and put on three columns. In fact he dowgraded the possibilities to shooters to be effective, he didn’t give oppotunities to his opponents to concentrate their shoots.

-For my side infantry were BG of 8 and mounted BGs by 4 but superior and always in two columns and side by side in order to share the shoots. Another idea is to charge shooters when you are disrupted and avoid another shoot and then bolster your unit if possible. The only time I didn't take care of this Richard broke one my isolate infantry BG with 2 LH BGs

So except to be unlucky and loose one base you have enough time to defeat the shooters even if they are LH.
So avoid to blame shooting army and think to adapt your gameplay against your opponent and probably you will find a solution rather to try to modify the rules which are for me excelent.
Sorry if I shock somebody with my remarks and appear to be rude but it’s not easy to use another language and find the right word.

[madaxeman]

As an example, as requested, of an extreme result, I had a BG of 6 HF Protected Offensive Spear broken by 3 successive rounds of shooting by a BG of 6 Jav armed LH. The spear had a general with them and were supported. The spear charged at two points in an attempt to drive off the LH, the VMD in one case taking them forward of the rest of the BL. It happened right at the beginning of the game and they were recovered, but were effectively out of the game having been turned around and fled twice.

As you say, it is an extreme result - and you can reasonably expect 1 extreme result in each battle. Plans need to be made taking this into account.

I must comment on the "broken in 3 rounds of shooting" issue which gets raised repeatedly. Unless you are unlucky with bolstering rolls, pretty much the only time a BG is going to be routed by shooting is if it happens in 3 rounds of shooting. If it doesn't, the BG will get opportunities to be bolstered.

Hi Richard

I can understand both of your comments here (and Simons on learning tactics etc), but I think you both may need to step back and look at the subjective experience of the game, especially from a "new" players likley POV.

Losing a BG of armoured spearmen to shooting from 6 or 8 (crappy) skirmishers, in 3 bounds, with no way of bolstering them even if I follow the advice in the book and have my generals in the right place doesn't feel like an "oh, you get one bad bit of luck each game you need to plan for it" event.

In fact, it really, really sucks - and all those it happened to are still whingeing about it 1 week later. I'm just writing up my games, and looking back at the photos I'm finding I am remembering all sorts of fun, exciting things that happened. But I'd forgotten most of them until I saw the pictures. In fact pretty much all I walked away with on Sunday night was a repreated memory of losing armoured foot BGs to skirmishers shooting and being able to do b-gger all about it.

The difficult in catching the skirmishers makes it even more irritating - and the way they can just turn and march away if they ever get in trouble is a double p-sser-offer.

If the shooting was from a block of massed bowmen, or artillery - fine. If the troops got battered by shooting and then broke when charged - fine. If you stood a chance of bolstering troops in the same turn they got shot by skirmishers - fine But armoured foot running away from 8 skirmishers, and being unable to stop it happening - thats just not right.

Bottom line is I think that the current probability levels of MF and HF (and probably knights, more arguably elephants & cavalry) BGs being broken by shooting from skirmishers feels so fundamentally wrong from a simulation POV that I fear that it could easily put people off the game and lead them to say "it's potentially a good game but the shooting from skirmishers is way overpowered so its broken".

[rbodleyscott]

For my side infantry were BG of 8 and mounted BGs by 4 but superior and always in two columns and side by side in order to share the shoots. Another idea is to charge shooters when you are disrupted and avoid another shoot and then bolster your unit if possible. The only time I didn't take care of this Richard broke one my isolate infantry BG with 2 LH BGs

10 Superior Hephthalite Hunnic LH, so not a trivial points outlay. (120 points plus 25 for allied TC).

[rbodleyscott]

Bottom line is I think that the current probability levels of MF and HF (and probably knights, more arguably elephants & cavalry) BGs being broken by shooting from skirmishers feels so fundamentally wrong from a simulation POV that I fear that it could easily put people off the game and lead them to say "it's potentially a good game but the shooting from skirmishers is way overpowered so its broken".

You may be right from the "feels to beginners" point of view.

The problem with gearing the interaction to beginners' style of play is that it would make shooty armies totally useless against experts. And shooty armies were far from useless historically. They dominated much of our period in many regions. Try using a shooty army (e.g. your Lithuanians) and you may get a different perspective on their chances.

Therefore, in order to get the right balance for experts, we may have to live with any bad reviews based on early perceptions. And if widespread tournament play indicates that we have in fact got the balance wrong, the rules can later be amended. Nothing is set in stone.

[dvorkin]

10 Superior Hephthalite Hunnic LH, so not a trivial points outlay. (120 points plus 25 for allied TC).

clear no problem with that

Losing a BG of armoured spearmen to shooting from 6 or 8 (crappy) skirmishers, in 3 bounds, with no way of bolstering them even if I follow the advice in the book and have my generals in the right place doesn't feel like an "oh, you get one bad bit of luck each game you need to plan for it" event.

The difficult in catching the skirmishers makes it even more irritating - and the way they can just turn and march away if they ever get in trouble is a double p-sser-offer.

Totally agree that shooting skirmishers have something frustrating but no more. It's obvious that army heavy army without skirmishers have a lot of difficulties so they have to integrate in their battle plan and accept some looses for the success of the whole plan as said Simon.

[marshalney2000]

Tim, rightly mentions my superior knights going down to bow fire but as I recall I rather left them out to dry so blame myself rather than the rules. Most of my other games saw my protected spears and other foot driving skirmishers away and indeed pushing them off the table. Maybe I was lucky but did not feel that I was.
John

[madaxeman]

Bottom line is I think that the current probability levels of MF and HF (and probably knights, more arguably elephants & cavalry) BGs being broken by shooting from skirmishers feels so fundamentally wrong from a simulation POV that I fear that it could easily put people off the game and lead them to say "it's potentially a good game but the shooting from skirmishers is way overpowered so its broken".

You may be right from the "feels to beginners" point of view.

The problem with gearing the interaction to beginners' style of play is that it would make shooty armies totally useless against experts. And shooty armies were far from useless historically. They dominated much of our period in many regions. Try using a shooty army (e.g. your Lithuanians) and you may get a different perspective on their chances.

Therefore, in order to get the right balance for experts, we may have to live with any bad reviews based on early perceptions. And if widespread tournament play indicates that we have in fact got the balance wrong, the rules can later be amended. Nothing is set in stone.

Thats a valid point, however commercially, it may be wisest to gear the rules more to beginners and then have tweaks for experts.

Or do both. Having generals able to bolster troops in the turn they fail a CT for beginner, but not for experts would be a very simple fix - if of course you wished to go down the route of having a beginners set of variables (did the beginners terrain fall out of the rules a couple of iterations ago?)

[petedalby]

4. The POA for being uphill is too powerful, maybe this could again be changed to a minus on the Cohesion test.

I'd like to endorse this suggestion from Lance please.

It struck me as odd that foot behind a PO should be no better off than foot behind a PO and uphill. This suggestion, either to give a minus on the CT to those downslope, or even a plus to those upslope, would address this point. And, as Lance states, a full POA is a pretty big bonus.

Pete

[hammy]

4. The POA for being uphill is too powerful, maybe this could again be changed to a minus on the Cohesion test.

I'd like to endorse this suggestion from Lance please.

It struck me as odd that foot behind a PO should be no better off than foot behind a PO and uphill. This suggestion, either to give a minus on the CT to those downslope, or even a plus to those upslope, would address this point. And, as Lance states, a full POA is a pretty big bonus.

Pete

Another option would be an impact only POA.

[shall]

See Ricahrds sticky for a number of changes the authors are proposing after Britcon. Solutions to soem evading problems that occured and to pursuit traps identified in soem games. Plus a few others.

Si

[hazelbark]

Having generals able to bolster troops in the turn they fail a CT for beginner, but not for experts would be a very simple fix - if of course you wished to go down the route of having a beginners set of variables (did the beginners terrain fall out of the rules a couple of iterations ago?)

Now this is interesting. Mainly because it gives a beginners version of the rules that may lead to other interesting options for beginners.

Another option is allow a unit that went to frag from shooting still be eligible to bolster that turn. But then again I am much newer in the testing process. In general i have yet to get a big benefit from all this bolstering people seem to find time for

[shall]

We have given some considerable thought to a beginners concept of FOG and involves some much bigger changes. Something we will return to once the main set is off to print. It is best to think of it afresh rather than a tweak of the main set we felt. So somthing clearly of the same family but with much simplificiation.

Si

[Pikeaddict]

See Ricahrds sticky for a number of changes the authors are proposing after Britcon. Solutions to some evading problems that occured and to pursuit traps identified in some games. Plus a few others.

Si

I thought those evading problems and pursuit traps were a balance to the skirmishing shooty armies forcing players to be more cautious in the way they were skirmishing. I found those tricks usefull to catch up such armies with my heavies !

Jerome